Spinal movement variability associated with low back pain: A scoping review

Abstract

Comprehensive understanding of the possible interventions for LBP patients would be beneficial for designing high quality clinical trials [24]. [...]it was considered prudent to undertake a scoping review, which is a suitable method for addressing an exploratory research question that allows for the mapping of key concepts, the different types of evidence, and the gaps in a research area [25]. Eligibility criteria for inclusion and exclusion. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.t001 Before the screening process, each assessor received background information about the review topic and a table of inclusion and exclusion criteria [36]. Because the number of screening abstracts was relatively large, calibration exercises were performed to ensure consistency throughout the process [29, 37]. [...]assessors started with a pilot phase to screen for relevant publications based on the eligibility criteria, followed by a discussion on how the inclusion criteria should be applied [29, 37]. [...]the purpose of exploring the methodological quality of the included studies using NOS was to investigate the influence of these methodological differences on SMV results (i.e., difference in SMV between LBP patients and controls, changes in SMV over time with or without intervention).

About the Authors:

Hiroki Saito

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Tokyo University of Technology, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6790-1549

Yoshiteru Watanabe

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Tokyo University of Technology, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Toshiki Kutsuna

Contributed equally to this work with: Toshiki Kutsuna, Toshihiro Futohashi, Yasuaki Kusumoto, Hiroki Chiba

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Tokyo University of Technology, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9252-4474

Toshihiro Futohashi

Contributed equally to this work with: Toshiki Kutsuna, Toshihiro Futohashi, Yasuaki Kusumoto, Hiroki Chiba

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Tokyo University of Technology, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Yasuaki Kusumoto

Contributed equally to this work with: Toshiki Kutsuna, Toshihiro Futohashi, Yasuaki Kusumoto, Hiroki Chiba

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Tokyo University of Technology, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Hiroki Chiba

Contributed equally to this work with: Toshiki Kutsuna, Toshihiro Futohashi, Yasuaki Kusumoto, Hiroki Chiba

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Physical Therapy, Secomedic Hospital, Funabashi, Chiba, Japan, Postgraduate School, Saitama Prefectural University, Koshigaya, Saitama, Japan

Masayoshi Kubo

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Niigata, Japan

Hiroshi Takasaki

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Saitama Prefectural University, Koshigaya, Saitama, Japan

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3699-2294

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) has a high recurrence rate, and its symptoms are often prolonged [1]. A possible physical reason for the recurrent and prolonged nature of LBP includes altered spinal motor control [2, 3]. Spinal movement variability (SMV) represents one of the measures for altered spinal motor control in LBP patients [4, 5] and is defined as the natural variations of trunk movement relative to adjacent segments such as the pelvis [6–8]. While a certain range of SMV plays an important role in maintaining healthy tissue states, an excessive degree of SMV is thought to be a potential risk factor for LBP [8]. Several studies indicated that excessively decreased SMV results in the concentration of load on certain tissues of the trunk, which can inhibit tissue remodeling and result in tissue damage [9, 10]. Likewise, excessively increased SMV leads to inconsistent or unstable spinal movement, which can increase tissue strains of the trunk [11, 12].

In studies investigating SMV in individuals with LBP, there are several methodological considerations that need to be addressed. First, a diverse range of methodologies and statistical tools for the assessment of SMV in LBP patients currently exist in the literature [10, 13, 14]. Broadly, SMV can be measured by linear and non-linear statistical tools [15]. Linear statistical tools reflect the amount of variability and quantify the magnitude of variation in movement [15]. The metric includes standard deviation, range and root mean square [8, 16, 17]. Non-linear statistical tools consider additional information regarding time-dependent structures of the system embedded in a movement sequence [15]. Thus, non-linear statistical tools quantify the structure of variability, and allow us to understand the adaptability of a biological system towards changing conditions [15]. As each tool has a different aspect of variability, data synthesis is challenging. Therefore, it is considered necessary to comprehensively understand the available methodologies and statistical tools in assessing SMV in LBP patients in order to determine the optimal methodological designs of future studies. Secondly, there seems to be inconsistent findings in the SMV associated with LBP across cross-sectional studies [16, 18, 19]. This is not surprising given the heterogeneous nature of LBP [20]. To develop diagnostic classifications that guide the management strategies for LBP, it would be essential to identify the subgroups of LBP patients [20]. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the potential subgroups of LBP based on SMV, and clarify the influence of different methodological approaches such as selection of LBP and movement tasks on the identification of subgroups. Lastly, there seems to be a diverse range of interventions and inconsistent findings on the changes in SMV in prospective studies [21–23]. Comprehensive understanding of the possible interventions for LBP patients would be beneficial for designing high quality clinical trials [24].

Therefore, it was considered prudent to undertake a scoping review, which is a suitable method for addressing an exploratory research question that allows for the mapping of key concepts, the different types of evidence, and the gaps in a research area [25]. The primary goal of this systematic scoping review was to identify suggestions for future research by undertaking the following four steps: (1) investigation of the methodologies and statistical tools used in assessing SMV in LBP patients; (2) identification of characteristics that influence the direction of change in the SMV associated with LBP in cross-sectional studies; (3) evaluation of the methodological quality and potential biases in the published studies; and (4) identification of strategies for optimizing SMV in LBP patients in prospective studies.

Materials and methods

Study design and methodology

This scoping review was conducted according to the framework originally developed by Arksey and O’Malley [26] and recently modified by several other authors [25, 27, 28]. The review was conducted according to the following steps: (1) identification of the research question; (2) identification of relevant studies; (3) selection of relevant studies; (4) charting of data; and (5) collation, summarisation, and reporting of results [25, 27, 28]. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [29].

Identification and selection of relevant studies

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1. The following databases were searched by the first author (HS): CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Of note, as searches of Medline and PubMed did not retrieve the same records [30], PubMed was included in addition to Medline to improve our search strategy. Searches covered articles published between database inception and 5 May 2020. S1 File presents our search strategy on Medline. In addition to database searches, we manually searched relevant reviews of kinematic changes associated with LBP [31–35], as well as focused reviews of movement variability [4, 10, 15, 20].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for inclusion and exclusion.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.t001

Before the screening process, each assessor received background information about the review topic and a table of inclusion and exclusion criteria [36]. Because the number of screening abstracts was relatively large, calibration exercises were performed to ensure consistency throughout the process [29, 37]. Thus, assessors started with a pilot phase to screen for relevant publications based on the eligibility criteria, followed by a discussion on how the inclusion criteria should be applied [29, 37]. The literature was then equally divided into three parts, each of which was screened by one of three pairs of assessors (HS and YK, HC and TF, YW and TK) through title and abstract review, without being blinded to the authors. Assessors were instructed to include the abstracts if there was insufficient information for a definitive decision [36]. Two reviewers (HS and YK) then performed the full-text inspection. Members of each pair initially conducted the screening and full-text inspection processes independently of each other. Disagreements between assessors regarding the selection of studies were then resolved by consensus and discussion [38].

Assessment of study quality

Although several methodological quality assessment tools currently exist, a gold-standard has not been established [39]. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is one of the tools frequently used in systematic reviews [31, 40, 41]. The NOS evaluates the definitions of cases and controls independently, and assesses whether recruited participants are representative of the target population, and whether the control series used in the study is derived from the same population as the cases [42]. Given the heterogeneity of the LBP population who showed different motor control strategies for LBP [20], we thought these aspects were important because different inclusion criteria of LBP may impact SMV. Furthermore, designing an adequate control group with evidence of no history of LBP is also necessary to investigate the differences in SMV between LBP patients and controls. Hence, the purpose of exploring the methodological quality of the included studies using NOS was to investigate the influence of these methodological differences on SMV results (i.e., difference in SMV between LBP patients and controls, changes in SMV over time with or without intervention).

The NOS consists of eight items that assess three elements of methodological quality: group selection (four items, 0–4 points), group comparability (one item, 0–2 points), and ascertainment of outcome (three items, 0–3 points) [42, 43]. A score of ≥ 8 was considered high quality [31].

Two reviewers (HS and YW) independently appraised the included studies using the NOS [42]. Of note, we used a modified version of the NOS, which was adapted to LBP [43]. S2 File presents the details of the quality assessment score. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. The level of initial agreement between the two reviewers was examined by calculating Cohen’s kappa (κ) and percent agreement. The κ values were interpreted as follows: ≤ 0.40, poor agreement; 0.41–0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80, good agreement; 0.81–1.00, very good agreement [44].

Data extraction

Data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers (HS and YK) according to the Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes, Study Design (PECOS) framework. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion. Parameters included study population characteristics (inclusion criteria for LBP and control groups, number of participants, participant age and gender), sample source, LBP symptom duration, pain or disability scale, and psychological characteristics such as the Pain Catastrophizing Scale [45] and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia [46] used to measure LBP. Exposure parameters included movement tasks that measured SMV, which could involve repeated spinal movements of any plane (e.g., forward bends, rotation, lifting). Comparator parameters included non-LBP or LBP individuals with different characteristics. Outcome parameters included differences in outcome between LBP and control groups, metrics used to analyze the SMV. As such, two types of statistical tools to measure SMV were extracted: the linear statistical tools and non-linear statistical tools [15, 47]. Reliability of measurement tools used or referenced in each study were also recorded. Study design parameters included cross-sectional and prospective studies (cohort and experimental studies).

Synthesis

All studies were classified according to study design, LBP characteristics including chronicity, intensity, psychological characteristics, the direction of change in SMV, and statistical analysis methods used to assess SMV. The main results of each study were also summarized.

Results

Study selection

Fig 1 presents the flowchart of the study selection process. After full text inspection, 154 studies were excluded, with reasons summarized in the S1 Table, while 18 studies [6, 8, 16–19, 21–23, 48–56] were chosen for data extraction. The rate of agreement with regard to study inclusion was 98.5% during initial screening and 85.3% during the full text inspection.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Flowchart of study selection process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.g001

Study characteristics

Of the 18 studies included in the review, 78% were cross-sectional in design [6, 8, 16–19, 48–54, 56], the vast majority of which (72% of total studies) individuals with and without LBP. The remaining 22% were prospective studies [21–23, 55], including a prospective cohort study [55] and three interventional studies [21–23]. With regard to LBP chronicity, 78% of studies examined chronic LBP [6, 8, 16, 19, 48–52, 56], 39% examined sub-acute LBP [6, 22, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56], 22% examined acute LBP [21, 53–55]. In addition, 14% examined mechanical LBP [18, 54, 57]. S2 Table presents the key methodological details of each study (e.g., eligibility criteria, and measurement apparatus).

Methodological considerations

Table 2 presents the NOS scores of each study. The κ value for agreement between the NOS scores given by each reviewer was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.66–0.85), indicating good agreement. The percentage agreement was 84.0%.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Summary of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for each study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.t002

All studies except three [8, 48, 52] received NOS scores less than 6/9. Most notably, relatively few studies received scores for more than one of the four NOS items assessing group selection: adequate case definition was present in 55.5%, appropriate selection of controls in 38.8%, appropriate definition of controls in 27.7%, and good representativeness of cases in 11.1%.

Methodologies used to assess SMV in LBP patients

Fig 2 presents the frequency in the type of SMV across the studies. Among the ten studies [8, 16–18, 21, 50, 52–55] that employed linear statistical methods, Coordinative variability was most commonly assessed using the continuous relative phase (CRP) curve [8, 18, 50, 52, 53]. Eight studies [6, 16, 19, 22, 48, 49, 51, 56] used non-linear statistical methods, where Lyapunov exponent, as a measure of local stability, was most frequently used [16, 23, 48, 49, 51]. Frequently used movement tasks included trunk forward bending and backward return [6, 8, 16–18, 21, 49, 53–55] and object lifting [19, 21, 22, 48, 51, 52, 54, 56].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. The frequency in the type of spinal movement variability (SMV) across the studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.g002

The SMV with and without LBP

Table 3 presents a summary of cross-sectional studies that assessed the differences in SMV between individuals with and without LBP, as well as those within the LBP population [6, 8, 16–19, 48–54, 56]. Six cross-sectional studies [6, 8, 16, 19, 53, 54] reported decreased SMV in LBP patients. Of these, three studies [6, 53, 54] examined acute and/or sub-acute LBP, while one [54] involved moderate LBP intensity. In addition, one study [19] found that LBP associated with mild-to-moderate fear of movement. Four cross-sectional studies [18, 50, 54, 56] found greater SMV in individuals with LBP compared with those without, and LBP in these studies was generally chronic and/or mechanical. Five cross-sectional studies [17, 48, 49, 51, 52] reported no difference in SMV between individuals with and without LBP. LBP participants in these studies generally had sub-acute or chronic LBP [17, 48, 49, 51, 52] with those in one study reporting relatively lower pain intensity (visual analogue scale score <2/10) [17], and those in another having low levels of disability (mean scores of 4.0 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and 7.8 on the Oswestry Disability Index) [49].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Summary of cross-sectional studies that assessed spinal movement variability (SMV) in individuals with low back pain (LBP).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.t003

Table 4 presents a summary of prospective studies that assessed the changes in SMV in people with LBP [21–23, 55]. Two studies [21, 22] reported increased SMV in some patients and decreased SMV in others, with the changes being associated with reduction of LBP following oral analgesia [21] or neuromuscular exercise [22]. In another prospective cohort study [55] and an interventional study involving random-perturbation therapy [23], no change in SMV was reported despite successful reduction in LBP.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. Summary of prospective studies that assessed the changes in SMVs of LBP patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.t004

Discussion

Methodologies used to assess SMV

This study found that the most commonly used linear statistical tool was the CRP curve for calculating coordinative variability [8, 18, 50, 52, 53]. Coordinative variability reflects the degree to which two segments of the body (e.g., spine and pelvis) can move in the same or opposite direction [10]. Coordinative variability has been used as an outcome measure to investigate risk factors for overuse injuries in other parts of the body [10], including the upper limbs [58], knees [59, 60], and feet [61]. A recent systematic review [62] found that 60% of studies assessing coordinative variability identified a significant difference between individuals with and without lower limb injuries [62]. Notably, all studies [8, 18, 50, 53], except one [52], reported a significant difference in coordinative variability between individuals with and without LBP. Furthermore, as shown in S2 Table, studies using the CRP curve presented moderate-to-excellent reliability [8, 18, 52]. These indicate that the CRP curve can be a promising statistical tool in comparing the SMV of individuals with and without LBP.

In terms of non-linear statistical tools, the Lyapunov exponent analysis [16, 23, 48, 49, 51] was commonly used. The Lyapunov exponent is considered as a measure of local dynamic spine stability and associates with mechanical spine stiffness, as shown by the EMG-driven biomechanical spine model [7]. Evidence found that local dynamic spinal stability was perturbed during repeated trunk movements during conditions of fatigue [63], while lifting heavy loads [7], and at high speeds [51] in healthy individuals. Of note, these conditions commonly occur in daily activities, workplace settings, and sports, and are often associated with LBP [64]. In this review, four studies [6, 16, 19, 56] using non-linear statistical tools found significant differences in SMV between individuals with and without LBP during repeated lifting [19, 56] or forward bending and backward return tasks [6, 16]. Because non-linear tools describe a series of measurements taken at specific intervals over uninterrupted time, they may be suitable for assessing the functional adaptability of the trunk in the presence of LBP through the performance of LBP-relevant cyclic movements [5, 15].

There is limited information as to whether one tool is superior to the others because different concepts of variability and analysis techniques exist within and between the tools. For example, one study [16] used both linear and non-linear statistical tools to compare individuals with and without LBP, and found no difference in the amount of variability, but a significant difference in the structure of variability. It may be possible that non-linear statistical tools may have advantages in quantifying the adaptability of neuromotor behavior in individuals with LBP [47]. However, this review identified a higher percentage of studies that found significant differences in SMV between patients with and without LBP using linear rather than non-linear statistical tools (75% vs. 57%, respectively). This may suggest that linear tools provide higher sensitivity in comparing the SMVs of individuals with and without LBP. Future research should include a series of diagnostic studies, including the accuracy and effectiveness of both tools that measure SMV in LBP patients [65].

SMV with and without LBP

Several studies reported differences in SMV both between individuals with and without LBP, and within the LBP population [6, 8, 16, 18, 19, 50, 53, 54, 56]. Changes in SMV with the reduction of LBP were also found [21, 22]. These findings support the assumption that SMV may be associated with LBP [5]. However, the direction of change was inconsistent among the studies, indicating the importance of considering the heterogeneity of LBP, and dividing LBP patients into subgroups based on LBP type.

The first potential subgroup would include LBP individuals with decreased SMV compared with those without LBP [6, 8, 16, 19, 53, 54]. The common features of this subgroup include acute or sub-acute LBP [6, 53, 54], mild-to-moderate fear of movement [19], and moderate LBP intensity [54]. These characteristics may be a consequence of increased co-contraction of trunk muscles as an adaptive strategy to avoid nociceptive excitation, pain, or injury, or as an anticipation of such threats to prevent further injuries [20, 66]. However, the decreased SMV may also cause unnecessary spinal compressive loads and muscle fatigue [67, 68]. Interestingly, a prospective study [55] found that the decreased SMV in non-chronic LBP patients persisted over 6 months even after remission of LBP. This may indicate that decreased SMV is unlikely to improve during the natural course of LBP and may thus contribute to the recurrence of LBP if left untreated. This speculation needs to be clarified in future studies.

The second potential subgroup would consist of LBP patients with increased SMV compared with those without LBP, with common features being chronic LBP [50, 54, 56] or mechanical LBP [18, 54]. Such increased SMV may reflect poor movement control within the neutral zone, and the increase in tissue strain associated with loading during end-range postures and movements [11, 12]. However, increased variability has also been observed in healthy subjects during fatigue-inducing tasks such as repetitive lifting [69], throwing [70, 71], and reaching [72]. Therefore, an increase in SMV may also reflect a positive strategy of exploring spinal movement solutions to minimize fatigue and injuries and preserve task performance [4, 10].

The third potential subgroup would involve LBP subjects without SMV differences as compared to those without LBP [17, 48, 49, 51, 52]. Features of this subgroup include sub-acute or chronic LBP [17, 48, 49, 51, 52], relatively low pain intensity [17], and a low level of disability [49]. Furthermore, it may be hypothesized that this subgroup associates with dominant social and psychological characteristics that contribute to LBP, and is thus independent of changes in SMV [3]. However, given that studies reporting such findings [17, 48, 49, 51, 52] did not include measures of psychosocial status, such hypotheses cannot be discussed further, and future investigations are required.

Aside from SMV differences according to LBP type, the current review found considerable differences with respect to task conditions. It is conceivable that different tasks that require different mechanical loads may influence SMV [73]. The included studies found decreased SMV during asymmetric [8], high-velocity [8], long-term repeated trunk movement [16], and during fatigue-inducing protocols [6]. Interestingly, two studies [8, 16] only included LBP subjects with pain intensities lower than 2/10 on the visual analogue scale. These results indicate that biomechanically demanding tasks may induce protective mechanisms that decrease SMV even if the LBP levels were relatively low. In contrast, another study [50] found an increase in SMV during the starting period of a sit-to-stand-to-sit (STS) test (the period between STS onset and the point of loss of contact with the seat) compared to other periods in LBP subjects with low-to-moderate disability (average Oswestry Disability Index score, 25.3%). It has been shown that the starting period of the STS test requires lower mechanical demands with less trunk and lower limb muscle activities compared to other periods of the STS [74]. Thus, it is possible that when a movement task is not mechanically demanding, increased SMV due to impaired sensory feedback and/or decreased motor commands become more prominent over the protective behaviors [75]. Therefore, it is plausible that the same LBP population could show an increase or decrease in SMV depending on task demands.

Lastly, this review highlighted that the interaction between tasks and LBP characteristics may represent important contributing factors of SMV in LBP patients. For example, a study [8] reported decreased SMV among LBP subjects only in the combination of asymmetric and high-velocity conditions. Therefore, the following can be assumed: (1) the combination of higher acute LBP, fear of movement, and high demand tasks (high speeds, high repetitive movements, and fatigue-inducing conditions) could increase the possibility of decreased SMV; (2) the combination of chronic LBP and mechanical pain states, and lower mechanical demands could increase the possibility of increased SMV; and (3) the lack of these combinations may not result in any SMV changes. Further research on these interactions is required.

Methodological concerns

Methodological heterogeneity and limitations were found among the studies included in this review. The review found a high risk of selection bias with regards to the LBP groups, resulting from problems such as (1) lack of reporting of disability levels [6, 8, 16, 17, 21–23, 48, 51, 53–56], (2) relatively low pain intensity among the participants [8, 16, 17, 49, 51], (3) lack of a set of procedures for the diagnosis of LBP [6, 17, 19, 22, 50, 51, 53, 56], and (4) multiple or unclear sample sources [6, 19, 23, 50, 51, 53, 56]. Similarly, only a few studies [16, 19, 52, 53] showed evidence that the healthy controls used had never experienced LBP. It is possible that some controls had a history of LBP, potentially altering their motor control strategies [76]. Such an issue could result in the LBP and control groups being inadequately representative, rendering it inappropriate to extrapolate the results to other patient populations.

Strategies to modify the SMV

As shown in Table 4, this review found three interventions that aimed to optimize SMV: oral analgesia [21], neuromuscular exercises [22], and random-perturbation therapy [23]. Of these, only one RCT applied the 6-month neuromuscular exercise and the wait-and-see intervention arms on subacute LBP patients and demonstrated SMV differences immediately after the intervention period between the two arms [22]. The neuromuscular exercises were specifically designed to increase SMV by requiring stability and mobility of the spine while executing a variety of trunk and lower limb movements [22, 77]. Thus, neuromuscular exercises could be a possible intervention to change and optimize SMV in certain subgroups of LBP patients. Further investigations on this are required.

Clinical implications

A clear insight into the nature and mechanisms underlying the alterations of motor control strategies may lead to effective diagnosis and interventions in LBP patients. This review suggested the importance of SMV in LBP patients for these purposes. Of note, several studies [6, 21, 22, 53–56] used wearable movement sensors to assess SMV. These sensors may allow clinicians and researchers to easily and accurately assess SMV, which may increase the applicability of assessing SMV in clinical settings.

However, this review also suggested the consideration of multiple contributing factors to the alteration of SMV in LBP patients: (1) the selection of statistical tools; (2) LBP characteristics including chronicity, mechanical or no mechanical states, LBP intensity and psychological characteristics; and (3) biomechanical movement task demands. Although potential subgroups according to the direction of change in SMV and factors that contributed to these subgroups have been proposed, interpretation regarding whether the alterations of SMV are positive or negative strategies for LBP remain unknown, as the included studies were largely cross-sectional design [6, 8, 16–19, 48–54, 56]. Future research is required to reliably identify the subgroups that respond consistently and favorably to targeted interventions to optimize SMV in LBP patients [24].

Limitations

A limitation of this scoping review is that the included studies were limited to peer-reviewed papers in English, introducing the possibility of publication bias and the exclusion of other relevant data. Nevertheless, we believe that the suggestions for future research derived from the current review would not change if other studies were included, because a large number of published studies were screened and considered for inclusion. Furthermore, this review only included studies that investigated SMV in LBP population using motion capture devices. Since makers or sensors were placed on the skin, it might be possible that SMV had been affected by errors due to soft tissue artifacts, which may conceal differences between groups [78].

Conclusions and suggestions for future research

The existing literature has provided useful indications for future research. First, this review identified two types of statistical tools used to assess SMV, with each type evaluating functionally different aspects of SMV. This should therefore be considered in the study design stage of future research. Second, this review proposed three potential LBP subgroups with different SMV characteristics, with each subgroup reflecting different motor strategies depending on LBP characteristics and task demands. Since the identification of differences in motor control strategies is important for effective diagnosis and personalized treatment [2], assessing the association of SMV with clinical variables such as pain/disability levels and psychological characteristics is necessary. Third, there is preliminary evidence from one RCT that neuromuscular exercises could modify SMV. Thus, the current review suggests a rationale for well-designed RCTs involving neuromuscular exercise interventions.

Supporting information

S1 File. Search strategy on Medline.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.s001

(TIFF)

S2 File. Modified version of the NOS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.s002

(TIFF)

S1 Table. Excluded studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.s003

(TIFF)

S2 Table. Summary of key methodology.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141.s004

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Citation: Saito H, Watanabe Y, Kutsuna T, Futohashi T, Kusumoto Y, Chiba H, et al. (2021) Spinal movement variability associated with low back pain: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0252141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252141

References

1. Kongsted A, Kent P, Axen I, Downie AS, Dunn KM. What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17: 220. pmid:27209166

2. Dieën J, Reeves NP, Kawchuk G. Analysis of motor control in low-back pain patients: a key to personalized care? J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2018; 1–24. pmid:29895232

3. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391: 2356–2367. pmid:29573870

4. Stergiou N, Decker LM. Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: Is there a connection? Hum Mov Sci. 2011;30: 869–888. pmid:21802756

5. Van Dieën JH, Flor H, Hodges PW. Low-Back Pain Patients Learn to Adapt Motor Behavior With Adverse Secondary Consequences. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2017;45: 223–229. pmid:28704216

6. Bauer CM, Rast FM, Ernst MJ, Meichtry A, Kool J, Rissanen SM, et al. The effect of muscle fatigue and low back pain on lumbar movement variability and complexity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2017;33: 94–102. pmid:28226298

7. Graham RB, Brown SHM. A direct comparison of spine rotational stiffness and dynamic spine stability during repetitive lifting tasks. J Biomech. 2012;45: 1593–1600. pmid:22542218

8. Mokhtarinia HR, Sanjari MA, Chehrehrazi M, Kahrizi S, Parnianpour M. Trunk coordination in healthy and chronic nonspecific low back pain subjects during repetitive flexion—extension tasks: Effects of movement asymmetry, velocity and load. Human Movement Science. 2016. pp. 182–192. pmid:26684726

9. Hodges PW. Pain and motor control: From the laboratory to rehabilitation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011;21: 220–228. pmid:21306915

10. Hamill J, Palmer C, Van Emmerik REA. Coordinative variability and overuse injury. Sport Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 2012;4: 45. pmid:23186012

11. Van Dieën JH, Kingma I. Spine function and low back pain: interactions of active and passive structures. Spinal control: the rehabilitation of back pain: state of the art and science. Elsevier Ltd; 2013. pp. 41–57.

12. Panjabi MM. A hypothesis of chronic back pain: ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction. Eur Spine J. 2006;15: 668–676. pmid:16047209

13. Cusumano JP, Cesari P. Body-goal variability mapping in an aiming task. Biol Cybern. 2006;94: 367–379. pmid:16501988

14. Graham RB, Sadler EM, Stevenson JM. Local dynamic stability of trunk movements during the repetitive lifting of loads. Hum Mov Sci. 2012;31: 592–603. pmid:21835481

15. Harbourne RT, Stergiou N. Movement variability and the use of nonlinear tools: principles to guide physical therapist practice. Phys Ther. 2009;89: 267–282. pmid:19168711

16. Asgari M, Sanjari MA, Mokhtarinia HR, Moeini Sedeh S, Khalaf K, Parnianpour M. The effects of movement speed on kinematic variability and dynamic stability of the trunk in healthy individuals and low back pain patients. Clin Biomech. 2015;30: 682–688. pmid:26021879

17. Chehrehrazi M, Sanjari MA, Mokhtarinia HR, Jamshidi AA, Maroufi N, Parnianpour M. Goal equivalent manifold analysis of task performance in non-specific LBP and healthy subjects during repetitive trunk movement: Effect of load, velocity, symmetry. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;51: 72–81. pmid:27915152

18. Silfies SP, Bhattacharya A, Biely S, Smith SS, Giszter S. Trunk control during standing reach: A dynamical system analysis of movement strategies in patients with mechanical low back pain. Gait Posture. 2009;29: 370–376. pmid:19046882

19. Dideriksen JL, Gizzi L, Petzke F, Falla D. Deterministic accessory spinal movement in functional tasks characterizes individuals with low back pain. Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125: 1663–1668. pmid:24418221

20. van Dieën JH, Peter Reeves N, Kawchuk G, van Dillen LR, Hodges PW. Motor Control Changes in Low Back Pain: Divergence in Presentations and Mechanisms. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2019. pp. 370–379. pmid:29895230

21. Williams JM, Haq I, Lee RY. An experimental study investigating the effect of pain relief from oral analgesia on lumbar range of motion, velocity, acceleration and movement irregularity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15: 304. pmid:25228332

22. Bauer CM, Kankaanpää MJ, Meichtry A, Rissanen SM, Suni JH. Efficacy of six months neuromuscular exercise on lumbar movement variability—A randomized controlled trial. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019;48: 84–93. pmid:31252284

23. Arampatzis A, Schroll A, Catalá MM, Laube G, Schüler S, Dreinhofer K. A random-perturbation therapy in chronic non-specific low-back pain patients: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117: 2547–2560. pmid:29052033

24. Huijbregts PA. A new model for orthopaedic manual therapy research: Description and implications. J Man Manip Ther. 2007;15: 197–199. pmid:19066667

25. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67: 1291–1294. pmid:25034198

26. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8: 19–32.

27. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5: 69. pmid:20854677

28. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Heal. 2015;13: 141–146. pmid:26134548

29. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169: 467–473. pmid:30178033

30. Duffy S, de Kock S, Misso K, Noake C, Ross J, Stirk L. Supplementary searches of {PubMed} to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104: 309–312. pmid:27822154

31. Koch C, Hänsel F. Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain and Motor Control During Gait. Front Psychol. 2018;9: 2236. pmid:30532718

32. Laird RA, Gilbert J, Kent P, Keating JL. Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15: 229. pmid:25012528

33. Saraceni N, Kent P, Ng L, Campbell A, Straker L, O’Sullivan P. To Flex or Not to Flex? Is There a Relationship Between Lumbar Spine Flexion During Lifting and Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2020;50: 121–130. pmid:31775556

34. Swain CTV, Pan F, Owen PJ, Schmidt H, Belavy DL. No consensus on causality of spine postures or physical exposure and low back pain: A systematic review of systematic reviews. J Biomech. 2020;102: 109312. pmid:31451200

35. Rausch Osthoff A-K, Ernst MJ, Rast FM, Mauz D, Graf ES, Kool J, et al. Measuring lumbar reposition accuracy in patients with unspecific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40: E97—E111. pmid:25575094

36. Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V, Noel-Storr A, Dooley G, Ballarini N, et al. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121: 20–28. pmid:31972274

37. Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10: 330–342.

38. Duffett M, Choong K, Hartling L, Menon K, Thabane L, Cook DJ. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care: a scoping review. Crit Care. 2013;17: R256. pmid:24168782

39. Farrah K, Young K, Tunis MC, Zhao L. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols. Syst Rev. 2019;8: 280. pmid:31730014

40. Elyasi M, Abreu LG, Badri P, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, Amin M. Impact of Sense of Coherence on oral health behaviors: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10. pmid:26275064

41. Heneghan NR, Smith R, Tyros I, Falla D, Rushton A. Thoracic dysfunction in whiplash associated disorders: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13. pmid:29570722

42. Wells GA, Shea B, O’connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Link https://goo.gl/DEVLUT. 2012.

43. Luchini C, Stubbs B, Solmi M, Veronese N. Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: Advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. World Journal of Meta-Analysis. 2017. p. 80.

44. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research, London, Chapman and Hall. CRC; 1990.

45. Osman A, Barrios FX, Kopper BA, Hauptmann W, Jones J, O’Neill E. Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the pain catastrophizing scale. J Behav Med. 1997;20: 589–605. pmid:9429990

46. Vlaeyen JWS, Kole-Snijders AMJ, Boeren RGB, van Eek H. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62: 363–372. pmid:8657437

47. Stergiou N, Harbourne R, Cavanaugh J. Optimal movement variability: a new theoretical perspective for neurologic physical therapy. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2006;30: 120–129. pmid:17029655

48. Asgari N, Sanjari MA, Esteki A. Local dynamic stability of the spine and its coordinated lower joints during repetitive Lifting: Effects of fatigue and chronic low back pain. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;54: 339–346. pmid:28672127

49. Graham RB, Oikawa LY, Ross GB. Comparing the local dynamic stability of trunk movements between varsity athletes with and without non-specific low back pain. J Biomech. 2014;47: 1459–1464. pmid:24524991

50. Ippersiel P, Robbins S, Preuss R. Movement variability in adults with low back pain during sit-to-stand-to-sit. Clin Biomech. 2018;58: 90–95. pmid:30064042

51. Moreno Catalá M, Schroll A, Laube G, Arampatzis A. Muscle Strength and Neuromuscular Control in Low-Back Pain: Elite Athletes Versus General Population. Front Neurosci. 2018;12: 436. pmid:30018531

52. Pranata A, Perraton L, El-Ansary D, Clark R, Mentiplay B, Fortin K, et al. Trunk and lower limb coordination during lifting in people with and without chronic low back pain. J Biomech. 2018;71: 257–263. pmid:29499832

53. Shojaei I, Vazirian M, Salt EG, Van Dillen LR, Bazrgari B. Timing and magnitude of lumbar spine contribution to trunk forward bending and backward return in patients with acute low back pain. J Biomech. 2017;53: 71–77. pmid:28087062

54. Williams JM, Haq I, Lee RY. A novel approach to the clinical evaluation of differential kinematics of the lumbar spine. Man Ther. 2013;18: 130–135. pmid:23047044

55. Shojaei I, Salt EG, Bazrgari B. A prospective study of lumbo-pelvic coordination in patients with non-chronic low back pain. J Biomech. 2019; 109306. pmid:31427092

56. Bauer CM, Rast FM, Ernst MJ, Oetiker S, Meichtry A, Kool J, et al. Pain intensity attenuates movement control of the lumbar spine in low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2015;25: 919–927. pmid:26524940

57. Jaeger P, Baggesgaard J, Sorensen JK, Ilfeld BM, Gottschau B, Graungaard B, et al. Adductor canal block with continuous infusion versus intermittent boluses and morphine consumption: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled clinical trial. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017.

58. Yang C, Leitkam S, Côté JN. Effects of different fatigue locations on upper body kinematics and inter-joint coordination in a repetitive pointing task. PLoS One. 2019;14: e0227247. pmid:31891644

59. Heiderscheit BC, Hamill J, van Emmerik REA. Variability of Stride Characteristics and Joint Coordination among Individuals with Unilateral Patellofemoral Pain. J Appl Biomech. 2002;18: 110–121.

60. Srinivasan D, Tengman E, Häger CK. Increased movement variability in one-leg hops about 20 years after treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin Biomech. 2018;53: 37–45.

61. Takabayashi T, Edama M, Inai T, Kubo M. Sex-related differences in coordination and variability among foot joints during running. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;11: 53. pmid:30237827

62. Baida SR, Gore SJ, Franklyn-Miller AD, Moran KA. Does the amount of lower extremity movement variability differ between injured and uninjured populations? A systematic review. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2018;28: 1320–1338. pmid:29239047

63. Granata KP, Gottipati P. Fatigue influences the dynamic stability of the torso. Ergonomics. 2008;51: 1258–1271. pmid:18608477

64. Heneweer H, Staes F, Aufdemkampe G, van Rijn M, Vanhees L. Physical activity and low back pain: a systematic review of recent literature. Eur Spine J. 2011;20: 826–845. pmid:21221663

65. Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HCW, van der Windt DAWM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2: 9. pmid:12097142

66. van Dieën JH, Kingma I, van der Bug P. Evidence for a role of antagonistic cocontraction in controlling trunk stiffness during lifting. J Biomech. 2003;36: 1829–1836. pmid:14614936

67. Bazrgari B, Shirazi-Adl A, Kasra M. Computation of trunk muscle forces, spinal loads and stability in whole-body vibration. J Sound Vib. 2008;318: 1334–1347.

68. Marras WS, Davis KG, Ferguson SA, Lucas BR, Gupta P. Spine loading characteristics of patients with low back pain compared with asymptomatic individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26: 2566–2574. pmid:11725237

69. Metwali M. Motor variability, task performance, and muscle fatigue during training of a repetitive lifting task: adapting motor learning topics to occupational ergonomics research. University of Iowa. 2019.

70. Forestier N, Nougier V. The effects of muscular fatigue on the coordination of a multijoint movement in human. Neurosci Lett. 1998;252: 187–190. pmid:9739992

71. Huffenus A-F, Amarantini D, Forestier N. Effects of distal and proximal arm muscles fatigue on multi-joint movement organization. Exp Brain Res. 2006;170: 438–447. pmid:16369793

72. Fuller JR, Fung J, Côté JN. Time-dependent adaptations to posture and movement characteristics during the development of repetitive reaching induced fatigue. Exp Brain Res. 2011;211: 133–143. pmid:21484395

73. Jordan K, Challis JH, Newell KM. Walking speed influences on gait cycle variability. Gait Posture. 2007;26: 128–134. pmid:16982195

74. Millington PJ, Myklebust BM, Shambes GM. Biomechanical analysis of the sit-to-stand motion in elderly persons. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73: 609–617. pmid:1622314

75. Reeves NP, Narendra KS, Cholewicki J. Spine stability: lessons from balancing a stick. Clin Biomech. 2011;26: 325–330.

76. Laird RA, Keating JL, Kent P. Subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics are present in people with and without persistent low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19: 309. pmid:30153815

77. Suni JH, Rinne M, Kankaanpää M, Taulaniemi A, Lusa S, Lindholm H, et al. Neuromuscular exercise and back counselling for female nursing personnel with recurrent non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial (NURSE-RCT). BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2016;2: e000098. pmid:27900169

78. Papi E, Bull AMJ, McGregor AH. Spinal segments do not move together predictably during daily activities. Gait Posture. 2019;67: 277–283. pmid:30391750